Russia Would Answer Conventional Attack With Nukes, Official Says

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

Published: 5:54 pm

MOSCOW (AP) — A Russian Cabinet member on Wednesday said that Moscow reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to a possible conventional non-nuclear strike in the future.

Wednesday's comments by Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, carried by Russian news agencies, reflected Moscow's concern with prospective U.S. weapons.

Weapons that have been developed in the U.S. under the so-called "prompt global strike" program would be capable of striking targets anywhere in the world in as little as an hour with deadly precision. Russia, which has lagged far behind in developing such weapons, has described them as destabilizing.

Without naming the U.S., Rogozin said that those who "experiment with non-nuclear strategic weapons" should remember that "if we come under attack, we will undoubtedly use nuclear weapons in certain situations."

He described nuclear weapons as a "great equalizer."

Read more: http://www.wtvq.com/news/world/story/Russia-would-answer-conventional-attack-with/qVLmCJOqCU2QOWtQOmE3cg.cspx

[darkangel218]

1. Damn...

[SCVDem]

2. Now that's defense

Unlike America and their offense systems.

I don't see a problem here.

Look at all the money they save!

[oioioi]

3. 'He described nuclear weapons as a "great equalizer."'

Nice touch.

[tabasco]

4. Well, no kidding.

If other US defenses failed and an attack force gained a beachhead on American soil, we'd nuke the shit out of them too.

[SummerSnow]

5. Oh my they have wmds...what will we do? sanctions or attack?

smh with sarcasm

[Cali_Democrat]

6. The PGS mentions conventional weapons

But I'm sure the US would make plans for those weapons to carry nuclear warheads.

Either way, it's mutually assured destruction.

The Russians are simply restating a policy that was already in place.

[Amonester]

7. Yep. Just in case a nut nuttier than bu$h or mc$ame ever get the power 2

attack 'em.

[CatholicEdHead]

8. Is Putin living in the 1950's?

That sounds like Eisenhower-era rhetoric around Eastern Europe and around the early years of the Korean War (which is still going on).

[Warren Stupidity]

12. No he is living in the post PNAC world where one nation has declared

that it has the unilateral right to attack any nation at any time for any reason and that it views any challenge to it's military supremacy as a causus belli.

[pnwmom]

9. Is China also experimenting with non-nuclear strategic weapons? n/t

[ltheghost]

10. Well Damn...

I guess that leaves out all speculation of what they might do...lol..

[Lurks Often]

11. Given the status of the Russian military, they don't have a lot of options

The Russian military is in poor shape that there were reports that they had to cherry pick people from their entire military to build up a sufficiently trained force to invade Georgia back in 2008.

If the Chinese ever invade Russia from the east (a long held fear of both the Soviets & the Russians) expect the Russians to use nuclear weapons.

[happyslug]

13. China has no plans on Siberia

The dispute with the Soviet Union was over the potential for a Soviet Invasion. Once the Soviet Union collapsed such a possibility ended. Presently they are no border disputes and no dispute over ideology (China says it is Communistic, but it is not, Russia gave up being Communist in the 1990s).

Worse, you do NOT attack you energy supply. Russia is the main source of Natural Gas for Europe and wants to become the main source for China (and both countries are working on achieving that). Presently less then 4% of all energy used in China is Natural Gas (but that is expected to change). 70% of its energy use is coal.

China presently produces 3.7 trillion Cubic feet per year, a number that is expected to raise.

Half of China's Imports Natural Gas comes from three Countries: Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, all by pipeline (about 1 trillion Cubic feet per year)

The other half (All imported Liquefied Natural Gas) is more disbursed:



China is opening up one huge natural gas pipeline (1 to 1.4 Trillion Cubic Feet per year) from Turkmenistan and another from Uzbekistan. China will be importing similar amounts from two lines from the Russian far east (China also has a smaller pipeline from Myanmar, formerly called Burma).

Thus within a few years China will be importing, via pipelines 5 to 7 Trillion Cubic feet of Natural Gas per year, all from former states of the Soviet Union (and all in close relations to Russia). China is also expanding its LNG terminals, so China can import Natural Gas from the Persian Gulf AND is expanding its own Natural Gas fields.

Russia does NOT have much in Liquefied Natural Gas Capacity (preferring to ship its gas the cheaper pipeline method). Remember it takes about the energy in one cubic foot of natural gas, to compress two cubic feet of Natural gas into a liquefied form (Liquid Natural Gas only exists under high pressure). Thus Liquefied natural gas cost about 1/3 more then natural gas piped in by a pipeline.



https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRwrugzG0AxQ-U9YI5emzUp6PdeLMKDMyYTiGmnGEceP4pEEptG8w

Long term plans is to ship Iranian Natural Gas to China via the Former Central Asia Soviet Republics, again with Russian cooperation. Thus the famous comment, you do NOT attack your energy source, unless you can take it all over quickly. The Siberian Natural Gas is in Northern Siberia and would take the Chinese a long time to take it for the roads are terrible, off road travel is impossible the the railroads (the best way to travel) all go east-west not north-south.



A secondary problem is China is looking for ways to ship to Europe without risking engaging the US Navy, thus Russia and China have both worked together to provide rail service from China to Germany: Freight trains leave China twice a week and take 18 days to get to Germany, half the time it takes by ship:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/10/us-kazakhstan-railway-idUSBRE9590GH20130610

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_China#New_connections_to_Russia

The biggest problem is the change in gauge. Russia's rail gauge is 5 feet (1520 mm), while China and Europe uses 4'8'' (1435mm) track. That 44 mm or 4 inches makes the rail cars incapable. Right now, it is easier to move the containers from flat cars from one gauge to the other. This has to occur TWICE, once as the Train leaves China (Technically Kazakhstan, it has built a 1435 mm line next to an existing 1520 mm line, so the Chinese car can reach its capital and make the switch there. Then another switch in rail cars occurs in Brest, on the Belarus-Polish border, this time from rail cars with 1520 mm gauge to cars with 1435 gauge.

Please note other shippers had been shipping via these routes since at least 2011. These tended to go via Manchuria to the Trans-Siberian Railroad not Kazakhstan then to the general Russian railway system. Thus China has committed itself to two ways to get its products to Europe via Russia. By ship such shipments can take up to 30 days, by train 15-23 days (In 2011 Daimler embraced rail, more do to the fact it took three days to go from its factory in China to the Chinese Coast, then onto a container ship. That made the weight for the product in Europe even longer.

No, over the last 20 years, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, China and Russia have slowly been moving closer and closer together. Chinese are all over Eastern Siberia with Russian cooperation. Thus a fight between those two countries, in the foreseeable future is unlikely. China sees the US as its potential enemy, and then over a fight over oil and Natural gas off its coasts (something Russia has no interests in at the present time or foreseeable future). They are conflicts, but given the greater fear of the US, all minor that both sides do not think is grounds to fight.

Furthermore, China is looking to upgrade Russia's railroad and build parallel roads of 1435 mm gauge, so to speed up fright travel to Europe by eliminating the change of gauge. One or two sets of track across Russia is all China wants, and Russia has no real objection to that plan (in fact supports it, for it would permit more exports from Russia).

No, unless there is a Radical Change in the Government of China or Russia, I foresee no conflict between them. They are to dependent on each other and becoming more so.

[Lurks Often]

18. I didn't say I for see a conflict between China & Russia,

certainly not in the near term future (less then 10 years), although what will happen 20+ years in the future remains to be seen. However barring some major change in the EU, realistically China is the only other country capable of invading Russia.

What I said is that Russia, in all it's forms, has long had a fear of invasion from the East. Russia has been invaded so many times from the East AND West, that they are somewhat paranoid about it.

[Xolodno]

22. That's the memo I keep hearing...

...ever since the Soviet collapse. Yet Putin, then his puppet...and Putin again have increased military spending and implemented modernization programs, increased training, developing a next generation fighter (in conjunction with other nations), planning an aircraft carrier, etc. Hardly sounds like a military on the wane...but rather on recovery.

Granted the Russian military budget is nowhere near the US....but, they aren't seeking out wars, concerned primarily with their immediate sphere of influence and other than a port in Syria (primarily wanted to guard their economic shipping interests)...really don't need a bloated military budget. Besides, trying to keep up militarily with another nation didn't work out so well for them the last time. Which was dumb thing to do in the first place...why do that when you can nuke them to the stone age?

As for the Georgia War...that sounds like spin. To them it was obvious the fruit loop in Georgia was going to do something stupid, so they enacted war games near the border. One to deter the stupidity and two, be ready to engage if stupidity won the day. So of course, the military units are going to be "cherry picked". Why on earth wouldn't you use the best units for the possible crisis on hand? C'mon, if the USA expected an attack on its "peace keepers" in Iraq...it would be stupid not to place ready the units that could deal with it best. Don't fall for the "cherry picking" to make good planning sound inferior. The US military obviously "cherry picked" who was going to get Bin Laden.

Now if your trying to say the USA will win in a conventional fight against Russia...I'd say no shit Sherlock. But they aren't preparing for a fight with the USA, but only preparing to guard their interests in the Arctic, contested areas with Japan, its European trade, etc. Whenever they assert their influence in their sphere we accuse them of a Cold War Mentality....but if you ask me, too many people (particularly right wing politicians) have shown they never left the Cold War.

[yurbud]

14. asymmetrical warfare is a bitch: we can spend ourselves to death, but other countries would be smart

to take this approach: instead of trying to match us weapon for weapon, figuring out how to use what they have to exploit our weaknesses.

Some neocon pinhead probably came up with the cute idea of "prompt global strike" without nukes without thinking of possible asymmetrical responses.

Putin said something similar about Reagan's Star Wars program: even if it had worked (which it didn't), they could have overwhelmed it with dummy warheads and then gotten enough through to do serious damage.

[jakeXT]

15. No more nuclear fuel for the US ?

Megatons to Megawatts 2.0: Russia eyes new nuclear project with US energy industry

Russia's state nuclear energy monopoly has delivered the last portion of uranium fuel made from Soviet nuclear warheads to the US. Rosatom is now looking forward to mutually profitable cooperation with America’s nuclear energy industry.

The final shipment consisting of four containers of U-235 uranium fuel, downblended from approximately 80 Soviet nuclear warheads, arrived in Baltimore from St. Petersburg on the Atlantic Navigator vessel. Containers were sent to a gaseous diffusion plant in Paducah (Kentucky) belonging to America’s United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), which produces fuel assemblies for American nuclear power plants.

The last assembly made of HEU-LEU (Highly Enriched Uranium - Low Enriched Uranium) nuclear fuel will be produced in 2017. It is expected that they will last till 2020.

Half of America’s nuclear power generation facilities used HEU-LEU uranium, which means that one in 10 light bulbs in the US are lit with energy generated from uranium derived from Russian nuclear warheads. All in all, Russian nuclear fuel has given America around seven trillion kilowatts of electrical energy.

http://rt.com/news/heu-leu-agreement-over-037/

[pampango]

16. Thanks Vlad for reminding us that Russia is a tough SOB. Reminds of Nixon's "Madman Theory".

"You touch me (or if I think you touched me), I will destroy you and everyone you know - and maybe a few million more."

Quite similar to Nixon's "Madman theory".

The madman theory was a primary characteristic of the foreign policy conducted by U.S. President Richard Nixon. His administration, the executive branch of the federal government of the United States from 1969 to 1974, attempted to make the leaders of other countries think Nixon was mad, and that his behavior was irrational and volatile. Fearing an unpredictable American response, leaders of hostile Communist Bloc nations would avoid provoking the United States.

Nixon explained the strategy to his White House Chief of Staff, H. R. Haldeman:

I call it the Madman Theory, Bob. I want the North Vietnamese to believe I've reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war. We'll just slip the word to them that, "for God's sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about communism. We can't restrain him when he's angry—and he has his hand on the nuclear button" and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace.

In October 1969, the Nixon administration indicated to the Soviet Union that "the madman was loose" when the United States military was ordered to full global war readiness alert (unbeknownst to the majority of the American population), and bombers armed with thermonuclear weapons flew patterns near the Soviet border for three consecutive days.

Like Nixon, Vlad seems to want us to think of him as a tough guy whose behavior can be "irrational and volatile. Fearing an unpredictable" Russian response, perhaps other countries will be more likely to do what Russia wants.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. How can we respond to this threat? Maybe we shouldn't attack Russia.

I don't really mean to make light of this; the fact that nuclear weapons even exist is chillingly alarming for damn good reasons. But taken at their word there is an option open to us for avoiding a nuclear attack on the U.S. from Russia; don't attack Russia first. I hope that never proves to be a controversial approach.

[hack89]

21. This is aimed at China

vast resource rich and lightly populated eastern territories and an military crippled by corruption and obsolete equipment is a bad strategic combination. This is a realistic assessment of both their conventional military capabilities and the strategic threat that an expansive and resource hungry China represents.

[dipsydoodle]

19. Putin Says Bids to Gain Military Dominance Over Russia Futile

MOSCOW, December 12 (RIA Novosti) – President Vladimir Putin warned Thursday against foreign powers seeking to secure a military advantage over Russia and said any attempts to destroy the existing global strategic balance would be futile.

Speaking in his annual State of the Nation address, Putin dismissed arguments that the proposed European missile shield is defensive only and described it as having a strategically offensive potential.

Russia has bristled in recent years at what it perceives as attempts by Western nations to undermine its national defense strategy and has sounded an increasingly bellicose note in resisting that trend.

Putin said that Russia is closely monitoring the development by some countries of new, fast-strike weapon platforms capable of hitting high-priority targets around the globe.

“The increase by foreign countries of their strategic, high-precision non-nuclear systems potential and boosting missile defense possibilities could ruin earlier reached agreements on nuclear arms control and reduction, and lead to the disruption of the so-called strategic balance,” Putin said.

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20131212/185497595/Putin-Says-Bids-to-Gain-Military-Dominance-Over-Russia-Futile.html

[hack89]

20. This is aimed at China

vast resource rich and lightly populated eastern territories and an military crippled by corruption and obsolete equipment is a bad strategic combination. This is a realistic assessment of both their conventional military capabilities and the strategic threat that an expansive and resource hungry China represents.

[Blue_Tires]

23. Why doesn't the USA have any of those "doomsday machines"?

What has the Pentagon been spending their money on to allow such a gap to Russia?